Kansas Legislature
Olathe legislator tries to head off Lawrence domestic partnership registry
City Hall still considering the possibility
February 1, 2007
Advertisement
Domestic Partnerships Registry
- Domestic partnership registry moves ahead (01-10-07)
- BLOG: The Lawrence City Commission debates the domestic partnership registry (01-09-07)
- Domestic partnership registry would be 1st in state (01-08-07)
- City Hall staff report on domestic partnership registration
- City of Boulder's Domestic Partnership Registration Program
- An example of what the registry could look like (12-23-06)
- Domestic partner registery considered (12-22-06)
- Lawmakers approve bill to legalize civil unions (12-15-06)
- Brownback: Judge should avoid gay marriage cases (12-09-06)
- Gay marriage ban goes to high court (12-01-06)
Topeka — A state legislator Thursday said he wants to prohibit the city of Lawrence and any other locality in Kansas from approving a domestic partnership registry.
Rep. Lance Kinzer, R-Olathe, has filed legislation -- House Bill 2299 -- which would prevent any city or county from establishing a domestic partner registry that "recognizes any domestic partnership not recognized under state law."
The proposed registry before the Lawrence City Commission would recognize same-sex partnerships as well as opposite-sex, unmarried partnerships.
A majority of commissioners have voiced approval of the registry, but have sought an attorney general's opinion on whether it would violate a Kansas constiutional amendment that bans same-sex marriage.
Kinzer said the proposed registry in Lawrence raises numerous legal questions.
"Domestic relationship law is really within the state purview," Kinzer said. He said those who want to change the law to allow domestic partnership registries should seek a statewide change before the Kansas Legislature.
He said an instance could arise where under the proposed Lawrence registry a same-sex couple would not have the same rights -- because of the state constitutional amendment -- as an opposite sex, unmarried couple.
State Rep. Paul Davis, D-Lawrence, described Kinzer's proposal as "meddling in a local issue."
"I don't see why the Legislature needs to address that issue. What is the state interest in preventing the city of Lawrence from creating a domestic partnership registry?," Davis said.
More like this
- Legislator wants to stop domestic registry plan in Lawrence 64 comments / February 2, 2007
- Committee stands against partnership registry 108 comments / March 23, 2007
- Committee to consider registry ban 25 comments / March 3, 2007
- Speakers defend Lawrence registry 86 comments / February 15, 2007
- KU group supports domestic registry 13 comments / March 10, 2007
Top ads RSS
- PHLEBOTOMIST Part time experienced phlebotomist needed for medical office. Hours ...
- Live On Site Manager- Self storage complex in Kansas City ...
- RETIREMENT COMMUNITY Pioneer Ridge Retirement Community is currently accepting applications ...
- St. Francis Health Center - NAS Recruitment
- Occupational and Physical Therapy Staff Positions. Rehab Center seeking full, ...
Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment · Bars · Theatres · Restaurants · Coffeehouses · Libraries · Antiques · Services
- Blog: Dillons, Hyvee, And Checkers — I'Ve Shopped And Compared. See The Results. November 8, 2009 · 212 comments
- Blog: Being A Stripper: 10 Things I'Ve Learned So Far November 10, 2009 · 82 comments
- Auto repair industry thrives February 9, 2009 · 2 comments
- Parental duties November 10, 2009 · 66 comments
- Blog: Song Titles And Lyrics: Nonsensical Non Word Songs! November 9, 2009 · 114 comments
- Thanks to Moore November 10, 2009 · 67 comments
- On the street: Did you watch 'Sesame Street' when you were a child? November 10, 2009 · 61 comments
- Attorney for man who says he shot George Tiller won't present 'necessity' defense November 10, 2009 · 27 comments
- 'White Owl' held in jail in connection with protective order case November 9, 2009 · 74 comments
- Patience November 9, 2009 · 8 comments
- First blast on section of Kansas Turnpike river bridge scheduled for early Sunday afternoon November 10, 2009
- 'White Owl' held in jail in connection with protective order case November 9, 2009
- Business development taking shape November 10, 2009
- <strong>FINAL:</strong> KU gives highlight-reel performance in 103-45 exhibition win over Pitt. State November 10, 2009
- Food Inc. documentary to be shown at KU November 10, 2009
- New, legal, drug has law enforcement concerned — and it's already on a Lawrence store's shelves November 4, 2009
- Cats are independent but trainable November 10, 2009
- Foodies will find delights along state’s path May 3, 2009
- Douglas County's Medical Reserve Corps shows its worth during H1N1 pandemic November 10, 2009
- Season's greetings: Photographer’s book explores Kansas nature November 10, 2009
1 February 2007
at 12:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Baille (Anonymous) says…
Damn Republicans and their Big Government.
The best solutions come from the people. Whatever happened to Kansas' time-honored respect for local rule, individuality, and the motto live-and-let-live?
The Republican legislators' penchant for a big centralized government and state regulations governing matters of local and/or individual concern is disturbing.
1 February 2007
at 12:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
janeyb (Anonymous) says…
They favor local rule as long as it doesn't step on their Biblical toes.
1 February 2007
at 12:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bethnbob (Anonymous) says…
Well, he won't get voted again.
1 February 2007
at 12:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
blue73harley (Anonymous) says…
So much work to be done yet we have legislators wringing their hands over trival crapola.
1 February 2007
at 12:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
werekoala (Anonymous) says…
Man, am I glad I chose to be straight. . .
It was a tough decision, but finally I realized that Jesus will still love me if I do girls in the pooper, but not if I do boys there.
1 February 2007
at 12:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…
Kansas Constitution: “Cities are hereby empowered to determine their local affairs and government…Cities shall exercise such determinations by ordinance passed by the governing body with referendum only in such cases as prescribed by the legislature subject only to enactments of the legislature of statewide concern applicable uniformly to all cities…Powers and authority granted cities pursuant to this section shall be liberally construed for the purpose of giving to cities the largest measure of self government.”
Such a statute as here, if passed, would probably be unconstitutional as there is no uniform state law on zoning, or discrimination, or any other obvious topic.
If Kinzer wants his prohibition, he'll need to amend the Constitution to get it. Frankly, mandating a uniform definition of “family” throughout the state is probably opening more of a can of worms than most legislators will be willing to do.
1 February 2007
at 12:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…
“….doesn't constitute the voices of the majority of residents of the city of Lawrence!”
I'm quite confident - quite! - that such a broad definition of “family” reflects the voices of the majority of residents in Lawrence.
Heck, I suspect that there's a clear majority in favor of marriage rights for same-sex couples, let alone such a minor zoning issue as this.
1 February 2007
at 1 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
fletch (Anonymous) says…
The GOP needs to remember that pillar of small government more often.
1 February 2007
at 1 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Ahem!
It will be quite specificaly recalled that I predicted such actions would follow Mike Rundle's harebrained proposal.
Amending the state constituion is not necessary; the language is already there.
Rundle's half-witted measure was designed as a “feel-good” to garner votes for the PLC in the upcoming elections here in Lawrence.
Most likely this prohibitiion will pass and the cause of gay unions will be set back for years.
Thanks.
Marion.
1 February 2007
at 1:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…
Finally, I also note the similarity in what Kinzer seems to want to do with a measure taken by Colorado back in the 1990s.
The result is here:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proje…
The United States Supreme Court struck it down as violating the United States Constitution. This situation isn't identical (the focus in Colorado was local bans on discrimination for homosexuals) but I would suspect there'd be the same outcome.
1 February 2007
at 1:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…
Marion: “Amending the state constituion is not necessary; the language is already there.”
What language is where? Please be more precise.
Are you putting forward the idea that the marriage amendment (a) restricts non-marriage situations, and (b) trumps other constitutional provisions without saying so?
In other words, the marriage amendment should be construed broadly as a policy matter and the local rule provision should be construed narrowly even though the text of the constitution states the contrary?
1 February 2007
at 1:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
budwhysir (Anonymous) says…
Wow all the way from olathe
1 February 2007
at 1:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Baille (Anonymous) says…
Maybe the honorable Rep. Kinzer will be drafting anti-miscegenation statutes next. The Kansas legislature - as bigoted as you think.
1 February 2007
at 1:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
James:
If I may quote from the Kansas Constituion;
Ҥ 16: Marriage.
(a) The marriage contract is to be considered in law as a civil contract. Marriage shall be constituted by one man and one woman only. All other marriages are declared to be contrary to the public policy of this state and are void.
(b) No relationship, other than a marriage, shall be recognized by the state as entitling the parties to the rights or incidents of marriage.”
This amendment prohibits granting any rights to any realtionship other than marriage betwen a man and a woman.
This is the hangup on “domestic partner” registries; you can have one if you want but it has NO legal force of any kind and may not under Kansas law be used to grant the partners any rights at all.
I do not support the concept but I can darned sure read and understand it!
They gotcha goin' in!
Thanks.
Marion.
1 February 2007
at 1:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Baille (Anonymous) says…
“This is the hangup on “domestic partner” registries; you can have one if you want but it has NO legal force of any kind and may not under Kansas law be used to grant the partners any rights at all.”
Uh…no.
It just says that no legal relationships, other than marriage, shall be recognized by the state as entitling the parties to the rights or incidents of marriage.
One, this is not the state we are talking about - it is the city. Maybe the county. Maybe a league of counties. :)
And two, it doesn't say all rights. It just says the “rights or incidents of marriage.” Now, I am not sure, but I would wager the specific language like that has some sort of legal import that distinguishes it from the phrase “any rights at all.”
1 February 2007
at 1:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
75x55 (Anonymous) says…
“The PEOPLE voted those “idiots”“
Actually, very FEW of “The PEOPLE” voted for these idiots.
Hence the real problem, a representative democracy that isn't all that representative.
1 February 2007
at 1:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
fletch (Anonymous) says…
“(b) No relationship, other than a marriage, shall be recognized by the state as entitling the parties to the rights or incidents of marriage.”
The thing a lot of people forget is that this ammendment ended up killing common law marriages in Kansas. Two of my friends were in a common law marriage, and were shocked when the wife was dropped from her husband's health insurance because the state no longer regonized a common law marriage as legal. It didn't matter that they had been in a relationship for over a decade, had a child, and owned a home together. The state basically forced that they get formally married if they wanted to keep their health insurance, share custody of their child, and keep the mortgage on their house.
That's where narrow mindedness gets you.
1 February 2007
at 1:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
optimist (Anonymous) says…
Issues of this nature are a state issue because people regularly travel outside the city of Lawrence and as a result any “special rights” they have in the city of Lawrence are not recognized. Much like the concealed carry law statewide consistency should be adhered to for the sake of those who choose to exercise these privileges. Some issues should be and are the realm of the state as prescribed by the 10th amendment to the US Constitution.
1 February 2007
at 1:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Baille (Anonymous) says…
The tenth amendment - relegated to a mere “truism” by our “Conservative”' justices.
1 February 2007
at 2:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Souki (Anonymous) says…
Marion:
I don't see how Kinzer's introducing a bill that would prevent Lawrence from establishing a registry proves that you were right in asserting that the registry would be contrary to the state constitution.
Kinzer, at least, would appear to disagree with you — or else why would he propose a statutory obstacle to the registry?
(I don't want this to sound argumentative. I appreciate that you're on the right side of this issue, and have often enough expressed your support in articulate and persuasive language.)
1 February 2007
at 2:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
oldgoof (Anonymous) says…
I think I will put on my Judge Judy hat and rule on some of the statutory and constitutional questions here…..
.
Goof/Judy to Marion: Jamesaust and Baille are correct on this one. Respectfully submitted, your interpretation of Sec. 16 would be found to be too broad.
.
Now, talk to the nice man with the microphone and pick up your check on the way out.
1 February 2007
at 2:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Bodan (Sandra Willis) says…
Fletch,
Good points go to you.
I have older relatives who agree with that comment, also.
1 February 2007
at 2:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Souki:
Kinzer's proposal is merely granstanding but it could pass.
Under home rule cities may in effect “opt out” of a law which is unequally enforced as was found in the Wyandotte County Sunday liquor sales cases but under even the most liberal interpretaion of that decision, cities may not “opt out” of the constitution of the state.
If Kinzer's proposal is passed, it would simply be reaffirmation of that which already is but it would pose another stumbling block to gay marriage.
Baille:
“rights and incidences” is legalese for things like custody rights, inheiritence rights, common property rights, spousal insurance coverage; in short it means that any “rights” that a married couple have may not be granted to parties to any other kind of relationship.
They sewed up this one pretty tight.
Thanks.
Marion.
1 February 2007
at 2:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Baille (Anonymous) says…
I agree with your definition of “rights and incidents,” Marion. Well, for the most part. :)
Seems to be that is substantially less than “all rights,” though. For instance, seems arguable that contractual rights such as those that arise from an insurance contract that gives benefits to “partners” could use the registry to confirm such a relationship - thereby by covering the domestic partners regardless of the constitution or their bigotry of our friend from Olathe.
1 February 2007
at 2:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
daman (Anonymous) says…
What a huge waste of government time dealing with this issue. The Constitutional Amendment passed and our city government doesn't like it so they try to back door (pun intented) a same sex marriage registry (I don't care if it's not “limited” to gays, that's who it is intended for). Normally, I would emplore our city government to get back to work on real issues but the three knuckleheads have done enough damage already, I just want them to clog dance, smoke pot and take days off until they're out then let the new commish's do the real work.
1 February 2007
at 2:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Baille (Anonymous) says…
If you can ban dope, you can ban cigarettes. Frankly, I am for treating the whole addiction issue as a public health problem.
However, last I saw, all the banning of the public burning of the toxic and addictive nicotine delivery agents was done at the local level.
1 February 2007
at 2:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…
Marion - I understand you position better now and thank you for your reply.
Unfortunately, I still do not agree. The City is not defining marriage at all. Rather, as part of its zoning powers, it is defining “family” - a definition already so broad as to include single persons.
As such, I don't see much issue here. As I noted, you only get to your result by reading the marriage business more broadly than any reasonable interpretation would and then wholly ignoring the contrary local rule requirement of “liberal” application. Determining whether persons in a household have a relationship is inseparably related to “single-family” zoning - the City MUST make a determination once it decides to create such zoning (the State of Kansas doesn't create this zoning).
(I also note that similar provisions in other states have also been narrowly interpreted - not that that fact binds any Kansas court.)
Finally, one further query: who do you believe has standing to file a suit against the City over this matter? who would the aggrieved party be? The AG would have such standing but I don't see him so inclined (Kline would have been).
1 February 2007
at 2:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…
“Libs are breathing so heavy ”
Excuse me! Keeping government out of people's bedrooms AND ensuring local control of local affairs are bedrock, non-negotiable conservative principles. No one can call themselves “conservative” without them.
1 February 2007
at 2:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
werekoala (Anonymous) says…
I will agree with Dambudzo in part - nether party is really consistent with its core values.
Republicans, supposedly in favor of small government, want state-wide laws that they like, such as regards teaching of evolution, sex ed, language laws, and definitions of marriage.
Democrats, supposedly in favor of big government, cry “self-determination” when they don't like what the Republicans in charge are doing.
My conclusion is that almost no one is across the board in favor of smaller government, otherwise the Libertarian party would be doing much better. They just want to object to certain parts of the “big government” than the other side.
Speaking of which - what happened to all those “I love my country but fear my government” bumper stickers I used to see back in the 90s? I bet they reappear like magic the day Hillary or Obama is elected.
1 February 2007
at 2:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Baille:
If the constitution says that such contracts are against public policy then the contracts would be unenforceable and insurance companies would merely use it as an out to deny coverage.
I'm tellin' ya, they framers of this act thought it out real well!
Now what's going to happen is that such proposals as the municipal domestic registry will be pushed and eventually challenged in court, in which place the constitution will be held not only valid but superior to any local law and that will be THAT!
WHAM!
BAM!
thank you, ma'am!
It's already over; most people just don't realise it.
The only way around it is to amend the constitution and that AIN'T going to happen.
The voters just did that and they are not going to reverse themselves in the foreseeable future.
Thanks.
Marion.
1 February 2007
at 3:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
justthefacts (Anonymous) says…
Can we put all policy arguments about the pro/con of gay relationships, or the ability (or lack of ability) of the state legislature to impact city's powers to adopt a registry of same-sex couples or what political party or group of people are the most evil or meddling aside, for just a minute, please ……
Can someone please - simply and succinctly - explain what would change if the proposed registry would be kept by the city? What would happen? Would landlords be required to rent to same-sex partners? Would employers be required to provide insurance to same-sex partners in the same way they provide it persons in a recognized marriage relationship? Would the laws of wills and estates be changed by having your relationship listed on the registry? And what about the open records act; could anyone who wanted to do so obtain the registry and then start terrorizing the persons listed on it?
1 February 2007
at 3:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Baille (Anonymous) says…
“If the constitution says that such contracts are against public policy then the contracts would be unenforceable…”
Really? And how often does that happen, Marion?
1 February 2007
at 3:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…
“in short it means that any “rights” that a married couple have may not be granted to parties to any other kind of relationship.”
(A) marriage isn't on the table here at all.
(B) “the rights” means “all rights” not “any rights” - many connected people have rights that are also held by married people - joint owners of real property, or unmarried couples having custody of a child.
Finally, I note that even Kinzer seems to disagree with you - he definately thinks the matter isn't settled by the Kansas Constitution, or else he wouldn't have introduced this bill.
1 February 2007
at 3:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ohjayhawk (Anonymous) says…
justthefacts - I think the answers to your questions are answered in this article.
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/jan…
1 February 2007
at 3:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Baille (Anonymous) says…
What does the euphemism “it's” stand for, RT?
And you know the answer to most of those questions, LFT, Esq. It's “no.”
1 February 2007
at 3:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Look folks, I do not suport what is happening; I'm only telling how it's going to go and thus far I have been correct.
Kinzer is just looking to write a specific statute under the authroity of the constition to prevent the establishment of domestic registries so as to minimise future legal challenges.
The constitution is very clear in prohibiting certain rights being granted outside of what the constitution defines as a legal contract.
Baille:
The answer to your question is “All the time!”
Contracts between litigating parties are frequently voided due to aspects of those contracts conteaining elements which go against public policy.
For example; deed restrictions based on race, ethnicity and religion have been thus held.
I'm tellin' ye that they gotcha on this as they really did it up right!
Thanks.
Marion.
1 February 2007
at 3:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cutny (Anonymous) says…
Are you saying you want to come into my queer bedroom and watch me smoke Right_Thinker?
1 February 2007
at 3:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Baille (Anonymous) says…
How do you differentiate “normal” behavior from “aberrant” behavior? I seem to recall reading an article about a study on gay sheep and how homosexuality seemed to be a fairly common event in the animal kingdom.
1 February 2007
at 3:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
consumer1 (Anonymous) says…
Meowwwwww
Look at the fur fly….. Whew!!
1 February 2007
at 3:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
EXks (Anonymous) says…
“When two queers marry……”
Gee, haven't heard the 1950's 'queers' label for quite some time…some language never dies…..
Ahhhhh, KANSAS, as bigoted (and ignorant) as you think! What a fitting state motto!!!
1 February 2007
at 3:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
And coing soon to a theatre near you!
“Threads Gone Wild!”
Off topic!
Abusive!
Irrelavant!
Stupid!
Thanks.
Marion.
1 February 2007
at 4:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Baille (Anonymous) says…
“[D]eed restrictions based on race, ethnicity and religion have been thus held.”
OK. Sure. I am familiar with that. You can't discriminate based on race, ethnicity and so on. This law is different in that it sanctions such discrimination so one would think it was more limited - not that necessarily has much legal import although there are those who argue that it does.
But are you saying that contracts between an insurance company and two people who say they are in a “partnership” whether gay or straight will not be enforceable? What about agreements to buy a house together? Agreements to buy a car together? Agreements to adopt a pet together? I don't, Marion. I think saying the amendment is that broad is a stretch. I think it is probably a stretch some insurance company lawyer is going to make someday, but I am not convinced they win.
Guess we will have to wait and see.
1 February 2007
at 4:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…
“contracts are against public policy”
There's a public policy in Kansas that says that the State has a rational interest in forcing a third party (insurance companies) from recognizing that two person, otherwise unmarried, not be considered to have an insurable interest in each other?
A) when did this happen?
B) what would that rational interest be?
(BTW - covenants on property that conflict with public policy due to race are not void, they're just not enforced. Such covenants are not contracts.)
Marion - I'm unaware of any public policy voiding of contract that doesn't fall within these three categories, none of which apply here:
1. contract for criminal acts - e.g., a murder contract
2. contract to constrain the exercise of core liberties (including one's own) - e.g., selling your 'right to vote'
3. contract that frustrates the operation of the law (which varies considerably among the states) - such as shortening the application of the statute of limitations between the contracting parties, or unfairly voiding access to the courts.
Any example where a contract is voided “all the time” that falls outside of these 3 categories?
1 February 2007
at 4:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
consumer1 (Anonymous) says…
Boy ! The granola is gonna get burned tonight.
1 February 2007
at 4:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ksmoderate (Anonymous) says…
Well, I say that rightthinker's homophobery stems from his fear of what he doesn't understand. That, and his Republicanism.
1 February 2007
at 4:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Baille (Anonymous) says…
“I say two men engaging in intercourse is aberrant.”
I know that is WHAT you say, RT. My question was HOW you came to the conclusion. What methodology did you use? What is your standard of measure? How do you differentiate between “'normal” sex and “abberrant” sex?
What do I say? I say study after study shows that homosexuality is largely genetic - just like heterosexuality. And I think what is “normal” sex for one person was statutory felony sodomy not so long ago.
1 February 2007
at 4:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
AreaMan (Anonymous) says…
Any room here for multiple-partner relationships to be registered?
1 February 2007
at 4:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
EXks (Anonymous) says…
RT….
1.. don't insult me with your feeble attempt to compare your bigotry and use of the 'queer' term to a television show that in itself dispells bigotry.
2. who are you to say what is normal and aberrant? I can only guess from what source you derive your logic.
3. would you define a man and woman engaged in fellatio or sodomy as normal or abberant?
what say you???
1 February 2007
at 4:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Jamesaust:
You wrote it:
“3. contract that frustrates the operation of the law.”
The consitution of Kansas prohibits certain things and the Domestic Registry seeks to implement some of those things.
There ya go!
Thanks.
Marion.
1 February 2007
at 5:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kmat (Anonymous) says…
To all the homophobes on this post - please do a google search for santorum to see what you really are. No need to just search, hit the I'm feeling lucky button.
Whether or not you approve of anyone's lifestyle, it's not your place to judge. Those of you that are homophobes because you claim to be a Christian (and yes I do mean CLAIM) are the biggest hypocrits of them all. If you want to follow in the footsteps of Jesus, then you will love all and have no negative comments for anyone, regardless of their sexuality. Find one passage for me where Jesus said anything against gay people. I'll save you the trouble because you probably don't know that “good” book as well as you claim. Only the old testament refers to homosexuality. So, do you believe more in the old testament and the laws of the jews or the ways of Jesus?
How about this? Why don't you start living in the modern world? Why do you care if someone is gay, who they live with, if they get to share benefits, etc…? And this proposal wouldn't only affect gay couples. The only reason my husband and I got married (after many, many years of living together) was for the health insurance. It was ridiculous that we could be together for so long and still be denied basic rights without getting married.
Those opposed to this because they are giant homophobes need to learn to mind your own business. If you are so disturbed by the possibilty of gay people getting some basic rights in Lawrence, then I would suggest that you have much deeper issues and should really spend some time finding out why you are bigoted.
And to those with all the pot smoking comments - just what city do you think you live in? My god, this is Lawrence. It's hard to not find someone in this town that isn't high. It's a college town! It's a liberal town! Get over it. Maybe you need to get high so you chill out and quit hating gays.
1 February 2007
at 5:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kmat (Anonymous) says…
“3. would you define a man and woman engaged in fellatio or sodomy as normal or abberant?”
I would define #3 as just plain fun!!!!! :-)
1 February 2007
at 5:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…
Marion: “The consitution of Kansas prohibits certain things…”
It does not prohibit contracts between persons of the same gender. Nor is the subject matter at all similar to frustrating the operation of the law nor the examples I provided.
And it would be surprising as Art. I, Sec. 10 of the United States Constitition says “No State shall…pass any…Law impairing the Obligations of Contracts….” Nor would such a prohibition survive the 14th amendment's equal protection clause (nor perhaps the due process clause, nor perhaps even the petition clause of the 1st amendment).
Again,
Any example where a contract is voided “all the time” that falls outside of these 3 categories?
(note: the issue isn't contracts here. rather, contracts are a side issue you've brought up re a query from Baille.)
1 February 2007
at 5:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kmat (Anonymous) says…
I'm not promoting it (this town doesn't need the promotion), just commenting since many had to bring it up. Saying someone needs to chill and obviously can't chill out on their own isn't promoting it. Just pointing out something that might make them more tollerable. Me, I don't need substances because I enjoy sex, which I think many of you homophobes don't. Best high there is.
Loosen up people!!!! If you're oposed to all this stuff, then turn your head. Gays aren't trying to pull you into their lifestyle, they just want equal rights. In a nation that is supposedly about freedom (what a joke these days) we sure seem to be against all freedoms (except for those granted for god fearing, heterosexual bigots).
I'm constantly amazed that my elderly, extremely religious parents who have been married for 51 years think gays should be able to marry. How is it that they can be so open minded, yet younger people have such issues? It's not about the sanctity of marriage (another joke), it's about caring for someone else and being granted the same rights as others.
1 February 2007
at 5:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Jamesaust:
I didn't write that contracts were voided outside of the three areas which you mention and although I'm not certain why, I beleive you are merely being argumentative and obstinate.
The Kansas constitution clearly prohibits granting the rights of marriage to any other relationship.
You cannot recognise a contract which seeks to go around existing law which is what the registry is trying to do.
You cannot grant what are normally considered to be the rights of marriage to any other type of contractural relationship, at least according to the Kansas constitution.
What I'm saying is that this will be the route taken by opponents to kill the whole domestic registry idea.
Thanks.
Marion.
1 February 2007
at 5:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ksmoderate (Anonymous) says…
Dambudzo:
People are afraid of homosexuality because they don't understand it. They don't understand that gay couples live and love just the same as straight ones do. They don't understand that gay people see other humans of their own sex the same way as heterosexuals see people of the opposite sex. They can't (or won't) wrap their brains around that, and that causes fear. Fear causes hate….oh, crap. I'm starting to sound like Yoda, aren't I.
Anyway. Hope that helps, Dambudzo?
1 February 2007
at 5:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ksmoderate (Anonymous) says…
Huh?
1 February 2007
at 6:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Tychoman (Anonymous) says…
Words can't describe how infuriated I am by this a****** Kinzer. I'm speechless.
Against gay marriage? Don't fracking get one!!
1 February 2007
at 8:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Tychoman (Anonymous) says…
Dogs do it as a greeting, you would do it because you're weird. No deal.
1 February 2007
at 8:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Baille (Anonymous) says…
There is some heavy-duty logical reasoning there, RT. Thanks for the discussion.
1 February 2007
at 8:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
budwhysir (Anonymous) says…
Yep, the folks in Olathe have a large impact on what we right here in Lawrence. Isnt there a county line between us??
Politicaly speaking on this highly political matter of political boundries and political speaches
1 February 2007
at 9:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Esq2eB (Anonymous) says…
Funny how the same people who are throwing a fit about an Olathe lawmaker meddling in the business of Lawrence, were the same ones defending the city of Lawrence's decision to meddle in the business of western Kansas counties who wanted to build some power plants. There are quite a few county lines between Lawrence and Holcomb…
1 February 2007
at 9:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
budwhysir (Anonymous) says…
ESQ Im glad my views have always been unchanged, but I know exactly what you are saying.
1 February 2007
at 10:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…
Marion: I beleive you are merely being argumentative and obstinate.”
I'm tempted to say the same.
“I didn't write that contracts were voided outside of the three areas…”
I know. You wrote that they were WITHIN the three areas. That's b/s.
The registry isn't a contract. Its not recognizing any contracts. The contract side-issue arose over the question of third-parties (NOT government) that might choose (we do live in a free country, no?) to form contracts with persons on such a registry.
This is an important point.
I (random individual, insurance company, whoever) am free to enter into a contract with you and your partner that is every bit as enforceable as one that I might choose to enter into with you and your spouse. Whether the opposite two persons to this contract are married to each other, not married to each other, or even married to other, non-contracting persons makes no difference in the validity of the contract. Period.
I'm agog that you are stating otherwise - please cite a single example where a contract has failed to be enforced because the other two parties to it were (or were not) married.
(sorry if you think it “obstinate” to ask for an example of your grandiose claim.)
1 February 2007
at 10:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…
I should note in passing, I think the registry idea is a political gimmick tossed out by desperate politicians preceding an unfavorable election climate.
That said, they (and the City) have every right to do it.
2 February 2007
at 7:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Esq2eB (Anonymous) says…
Bud, I know. Wasn't attacking you, just borrowing your “county line” theory…
2 February 2007
at 11:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
snowWI (Anonymous) says…
Why are so many people from Olathe so incredibly conservative? It seems that the politicians there have some kind of “moral” authority to tell others what to do.
2 February 2007
at 11:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
budwhysir (Anonymous) says…
I know ESQ no hard feelings here, I get along with everyone. I actualy think my county line theory is going to get us somewhere some day.
2 February 2007
at 12:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Jamesaust:
You are missing my point entirely so I will try again.
The Ks, cons. defines marriage.
The ks constitution defines marriage as a contract.
The Ks Cons. prohibits assigning the accoutrements of marriage(Those things that we normally consider “marital rights”) to any other contractural relationship.
Ergo, any contract which seeks to assign any of the defined “rights of marriage” to any other form of relationship, contractural or otherwise, may be held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction.
Any contract which seeks to curcumvent existing law may well be held invalid by a court.
One of the stated purposes of the domestic registry is to grant official recognition to relationships such that some of the accoutrements of marriage may be more easily granted those relationships.
The granting of the accoutrements of marriage to any realtionship other than marriage as defined in the ks cons will be held invalid by the court.
Any law enacted which attempts the same thing will be held invalid as well.
This is the foundation for the proposed bill.
I hope that I have been clear this time and I'll have to ask you to forgive me for mot having been more clear first time 'round.
Dealing with a slight case of pneumonia and the screen gets fuzzy sometimes.
Thanks.
Marion.